Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

All right, I'll venture another go at this. I like an argument.

Originally Posted by Nightblade

In all the years I have owned a firearm I have never said anything as stupid and irresponsible as that ,anybody who is a responsible gun owner would not say that. Thanks for the generalized and speculative statement. And if you have taken the proper classes for concealed law abiding carry,you would be less inclined to have an accident let alone say something as cowboy irresponsable as that.Further don't think for a moment that soldiers and law enforcement officers don't get scared in the heat of the moment.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I absolutely 100% wholeheartedly agree with that much of your post...

All right, I'll give you the longer, less simple version, as apparently you don’t see or want to see my point:

I assume and hope that MOST people who get guns are aware of the possible dangers, learn to handle them and store them properly. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I don't. But I also think that there are a number people who get guns for the wrong reasons and do not quite know how to handle or store them.

Me mentioning people who say "I got a gun and if anyone comes at me, I'll whip it out and shove it up their ass!!" was meant as a humourous simplification typifying SOME people who, after they get a gun, see it as leverage in a heated argument and all of the sudden think they’re Dirty Harry. Don’t tell me people like that don’t exist. They do. If they exist in Finland, they exist in the States. It probably and hopefully is only a small minority, but those people do exist and one person like that can do some serious, irreparable damage.

But I never generalized and said “all people who have guns go out and randomly shoot people for stupid reasons because they’re hot-headed, gun-toting, trigger-happy idiots with manhood issues.” I didn’t, don't pretend that's what I said. I assume you can read. I have no problem with decent, mentally balanced people owning guns. Hell, I’m considering taking up shooting at a shooting range myself (it’s just quite expensive for a poor student like me). Beats playing golf by a long shot. This was my point and I hope I clarified it.

Oh, and in the vein of the hypothetical situations (because apparently that is the right way to argue about gun ownership and use) I came up with a nice scenario too:

While driving your 4x4 back from the city with your most favourite loved one, a little girl suddenly shoots out of a drive way on her bicycle. No way you could have seen her or hit the brake in time, you hit her, she flies across the asphalt. You and your loved one get out, worried and panicking, trying to help. Her mother runs out, runs back in to call an ambulance.

Her father runs out after seeing it happen, rushes to see her, notices she's dead. He loses it. He is going for his gun and is ready to shoot you. You happen to have a gun on you as well, going for it instinctively. You draw just before he does, he is out of his mind with anger and grief and will not hesitate to shoot you, you see it in his eyes. Do you risk the life of you and your loved one or do you also shoot the father of the girl you just hit with your truck? Or as Glen so adequately put it:

Originally Posted by gssixgun

So???? Moment of truth now, pretty tough situation, huh

My point here is that it’s easy to come up with a hypothetical situation that can happen in real life to support your point of view. Of course you try to protect your loved ones, you’d be an idiot if you wouldn’t, you’ll shoot the intruders (or at least say you will). But another overlooked point is: what if you DIDN’T have that gun in the drawer next to you because you don’t own a gun because either you don't want it or your wife will leave you if you do? Does it mean you are a bad father/spouse/etc. because you didn’t buy a semi-automatic gun in case a mob running into your house tries to severely hurt your loved ones?

I dare you to tell someone whose had his family hurt by violence that it was his fault because he didn’t keep a gun within arms reach at all times and that he is a lousy husband/father/protector/etc. because of it. Because that is an implication of such a hypothetical situation: it's not so much a matter of a balanced choice, you’re really just an idiot if you don’t own a gun.

Originally Posted by Pithor

All right, I'll venture another go at this. I like an argument.





I'll re-iterate my point in a slightly different way, as apparently you don’t see or want to see my point:

I assume and hope that MOST people who get guns are aware of the possible dangers, learn to handle them and store them properly. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I don't.

Perfect we agree,



Oh, and in the vein of the hypothetical situations, because apparently that is the right way to argue about gun-ownership and use, I came up with a nice scenario too:

While driving your 4x4 back from the city with your most favourite loved one, a little girl suddenly shoots out of a drive way on her bicycle. No way you could have seen her or hit the brake in time, you hit her, she flies across the asphalt. You and your loved one get out, worried and panicking. Her mother runs out, runs back in to phone an ambulance.

Her father runs out after seeing it happen, rushes to see her, notices she's dead. He loses it. He is going for his gun and is ready to shoot you. You happen to have a gun on you as well, going for it instinctively. You draw just before he does, he is out of his mind with anger and grief and will not hesitate to shoot you, you see it in his eyes. Do you risk the life of you and your loved one or do you also shoot the father of the girl you just hit with your truck? Or as Glen so adequately put it:




My point here is that it’s easy to come up with a hypothetical situation that can happen in real life to support your point of view. Of course you try to protect your loved ones, you’d be an idiot if you wouldn’t, you’ll shoot the intruders (or at least say you will). But another overlooked point is: what if you DIDN’T have that gun in the drawer next to you because you don’t own a gun because either you don't want it or your wife will leave you if you do? Does it mean you are a bad father/spouse/etc. because you didn’t buy a semi-automatic gun in case a mob running into your house tries to severely hurt your loved ones?

I dare you to tell someone whose had his family hurt by violence that it was his fault because he didn’t keep a gun within arms reach at all times and that he is a lousy husband/father/protector/etc. because of it. Because that is an implication of such a hypothetical situation: it's not so much a matter of choice, you’re an idiot if you don’t own a gun.

So your situstion is rather easy and simple really, If somebody is a threat to me or mine I have every right to protect myself or them with whatever force is deemed Reasonable and Necessary... ie: yes I would draw and fire to protect my loved one, period, every single time no matter how you ask it...

I might and I say MIGHT depending on how the situation unfolded give warning first to the greiving father...

As to the rest of your question YES, as the Husband/Father it is your Duty, Job, Responsibility, to Protect your loved ones regardless, if you believe that a Full Auto .50 cal is necessary to accomplish that, then go get one, in fact get two there might be a second Mob around the corner.... (It might also be smarter to move the family from this crappy neighborhood)

By the way the Father in the first scenario is also at grevious fault for not watching the kid on the bike better and allowing the kid to ride into the street... This is why he is so distraught, he realized it was his fault and wants to shoot me and my wife so we wouldn't tell the police


PS: I will always, without a doubt protect me and mine, so no matter how you ask it the answer will be Yes..

Originally Posted by gssixgun

...I will always, without a doubt protect me and mine, so no matter how you ask it the answer will be Yes..

It's THAT simple for me too...no since adding any more at all. Well said Glen.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

PS: I will always, without a doubt protect me and mine, so no matter how you ask it the answer will be Yes..

Originally Posted by shooter74743

It's THAT simple for me too...no since adding any more at all. Well said Glen.

And I'm not saying you shouldn't. I would too. I just believe that a semi-automatic is not a requirement for that. Never mind how to mentally deal with something like that afterwards, because you can be as hard as nails, it will get to you. But then again, I have never shot and killed anyone, so what do I know?

In my own hypothetical situation I would probably shoot the father as well. And I would most likely suffer from PTSD, and would never be able to morally justify it to myself with 100% certainty. In the least I would feel quite uncomfortable around guns for quite a while.

Originally Posted by Pithor

I just believe that a semi-automatic is not a requirement for that.

Ahhhh see you made the requirement for that with the Mob, in fact with the Mob I would want select fire.

If there are multiple targets you want multiple rounds,, there is a reason why LEO's were switched from Revolvers to Semi-Auto about 30 years ago the stats were showing that they were more and more having to deal with Multiple Assailants sure wasn't because the Departments wanted to spend more on rounds and weapons...


"If you need a hammer to drive a nail, don't show up with a screwdriver to get it done"


We realize that it is hard for many of you in other countries to understand the US Wild West mentality, but you guys jumped in with your veiws and opinions about our gun laws, so we are explaining them to you and why they are ...

Typical home invasions are with multiple attackers. Wouldn't wanna go against that with a bolt action firearm. In any case, our home couldn't effectively be defended with a rifle (too many corners). 1911 would probably be the ticket if I were concerned about breakins.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

We realize that it is hard for many of you in other countries to understand the US Wild West mentality, but you guys jumped in with your veiws and opinions about our gun laws, so we are explaining them to you and why they are ...

Maybe you should do something about the wild west mentality? I do not know, honestly.
I didn't vote nor have any opinion about your gun laws. Only pointed out how things work here. Less guns = less homicides made with a gun. And almost 100% of all gun related violence is done with a legal gun by a legal owner or his/her family members. That is just the way it is here.
Still i can understand your point 100%.

Hmmmmm


"Finns have the fourth most firearms in the world per capita (right after United States, Yemen, Switzerland) totalling 1.8 million registered privately owned firearms and 100,000–200,000 unregistered firearms. Gun related homicides are rare, comprising 14% of the total number of homicides, which is comparatively low"


Sounds like maybe you have the guns but not the crime

Edit: Looking closer it seems as though you are starting to get the Russian Mafia influence and Prisoners have increased 30% quite recently...
Your crime stats also show that 75% of crimes are influenced by alcohol, sounds like you guys might look into Prohibition it might curb that crime rate for you...

Prostitution seems to be on a steep rise also

See guys it is rather easy to look from afar and render judgement...

I just now discovered this thread, and I won't read all the 47 previous pages, but I'll give my opinion all the same.

Full auto is FUN, and has a limited practical use. The only reason it's illegal is because of ignorance of the general public.
I say this, because you can practically fire a semi auto at the very same rate if you so desired. You could DEFINITELY fire it with more accuracy. I assume the picture the anti-gunner has in his head when he wants to ban automatic weapons is something out of a war-movie where a scary spray of bullets shreds its victims.

Now back to reality. I have a good friend who is a SSG in the marine corps of the force recon division. For those of you who don't know, this is basically the same as Navy seals or army delta force etc. Special forces essentially.
Anyways, when they do drills or practice with their weapons (m16s or m4 variants most oftenly) he says they N-E-V-E-R use full auto EVER. They may fire three round bursts, but most often just semi auto with two or three controlled aimed shots.
So if the most elite "killers" in the world opt to not use full auto, how dangerous can it be? I mean if you just aim and hold the trigger and the enemy dies, they would all always use it and never anything else right?
The only FA they use that I'm aware of is support type weapons such as the M249 SAW and other heavy machine-guns.

I've shot many full auto guns in my life, and it's a ton of fun. But if I had a m16 for home defense and had to use it, I'd flick it to semi and not auto. Likewise, if I was in a firefight against a hypothetical enemy I'd definitely prefer an untrained idiot who just emptied his mags on full auto with no accuracy than a trained marksman taking 2-3-4 shot bursts at me.

I also seem to recall reading a statistic that automatic weapons have killed fewer people in the US than things like accidentally falling down while walking on concrete and hitting your head. It's basically unheard of. The weapon of choice for criminals seem to be what they can carry hidden on their person.

TLDR; auto's are scary to ignorants, the reality is that if anything semi autos are more lethal.

Originally Posted by Pithor

I just believe that a semi-automatic is not a requirement for that.

I simply don't understand this statement, why would I limit myself to a flintlock? I carry a ultra-reliable modern firearm, which is a semi-automatic & my backup is a mouse-gun (NAA .22mag revolver, small, very small). As a matter of a fact, I am eyeballing the new XDs...the latest and possibly greatest that is specifically designed for CCW in .45acp. I would be willing to bet that 95% of all concealed carry firearm research and development by major firearm manufacturers is in the semi-automatic department. Yes, I have a Judge revolver (the latest big thing to happen to revolvers), but that bulky thing is a hiking, console & nightstand weapon...hardly a CCW weapon unless you are wearing bulky clothing.

May I remind everyone of the #1 killer of innocent people...negligence behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. My point is that people harm people & there is nothing a government entity can to about it. We the people must change it...